Do scientists get fundamental research ideas by solving practical problems

We discuss the problem-solving nature of scientific activity and maintain that contributions made in the form of improved methodologies, new technologies, and instruments for research are, and will increasingly become, central in experimental sciences and in fields traditionally the realm of pure intellectual speculation. The contribution of scientists to the development of new technologies and techniques for research purposes largely exceeds their contribution to developing technologies for industrial purposes, although the former easily blurs into the latter. We verify the effect of both types of contributions on the productivity of a sample of American star physicists, and show that improving research technologies always boosts the productivity of scientists, whereas developing industrial technologies is beneficial only when the technology stems from a research instrument. Copyright 2009 The Author 2009. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of Associazione ICC. All rights reserved., Oxford University Press.

[1]  John R. Harris,et al.  Inside the Black Box: Technology and Economics , 1984 .

[2]  R. Nelson,et al.  American Universities and Technical Advance in Industry , 1994 .

[3]  Gerd K. Binnig,et al.  Scanning Tunneling Microscopy—from Birth to Adolescence (Nobel Lecture) , 1987 .

[4]  Edward J. Hackett,et al.  Tokamaks and turbulence: research ensembles, policy and technoscientific work , 2004 .

[5]  Mark S. Granovetter.  T H E S T R E N G T H O F WEAK TIES: A NETWORK THEORY REVISITED , 1983 .

[6]  Stefano Breschi,et al.  University patenting and scientific productivity: a quantitative study of Italian academic inventors , 2008 .

[7]  L. Vaccarezza.  The new production of knowledge. The dinamics of science and research in contemporary societies, Michael Gibbons, Camille Limoges, Hega Nowotny, Simon Schwartzman, Peter Scott y Martin Trow, Londres, SAGE Publications, 1994, 179 páginas. , 1995 .

[8]  E. Schlesinger,et al.  Chase, chance, and creativity , 1981, Proceedings of the IEEE.

[9]  D. Price.  Is Technology Historically Independent of Science? A Study in Statistical Historiography , 1965 .

[10]  D. Price,et al.  Little Science, Big Science and Beyond , 1986 .

[11]  Paul Israel,et al.  The Sources of Innovation , 1990 .

[12]  Stefano Breschi,et al.  Open Science and University Patenting: A Bibliometric Analysis of the Italian Case , 2006 .

[13]  Christopher Palmberg,et al.  Modes, Challenges and Outcomes of Nanotechnology Transfer - A Comparative Analysis University and Company Researchers , 2007 .

[14]  S. Breschi,et al.  THE SCIENTIFIC PRODUCTIVITY OF ACADEMIC INVENTORS: NEW EVIDENCE FROM ITALIAN DATA , 2007 .

[15]  Jason Owen-Smith.  Managing Laboratory Work through Skepticism: Processes of Evaluation and Control , 2001, American Sociological Review.

[16]  M. Wilkins.  The third man of the double helix , 2003 .

[17]  D. E. Stokes.  Pasteur's Quadrant: Basic Science and Technological Innovation , 1997 .

[18]  Kira Fabrizio,et al.  Commercializing the laboratory: Faculty patenting and the open science environment , 2008 .

[19]  Frederic Lawrence Holmes,et al.  Investigative Pathways: Patterns and Stages in the Careers of Experimental Scientists , 2004 .

[20]  R. Merton.  The Matthew Effect in Science , 1968, Science.

[21]  M. Trajtenberg,et al.  Universities as a Source of Commercial Technology: A Detailed Analysis of University Patenting, 19651988 , 1995, Review of Economics and Statistics.

[22]  G. Binnig,et al.  Scanning tunneling microscopy-from birth to adolescence , 1987 .

[23]  K. Knorr-Cetina.  The Manufacture of Knowledge: an Essay on the Constructivist and Contextual Nature of Science , 1985 .

[24]  John B. Kidd,et al.  Models of Discovery , 1978 .

[25]  B. Looy,et al.  Combining entrepreneurial and scientific performance in academia: towards a compounded and reciprocal Matthew-effect? , 2004 .

[26]  Paula E. Stephan,et al.  Research Productivity over the Life Cycle: Evidence for Academic Scientists , 1991 .

[27]  E. Mansfield.  Academic Research Underlying Industrial Innovations , 1995 .

[28]  H. Simon,et al.  Studies of Scientific Discovery: Complementary Approaches and Convergent Findings , 1999 .

[29]  Marcus J. Seifer.  Wizard: The Life and Times of Nikola Tesla: Biography of a Genius , 1998 .

[30]  Waverly W. Ding,et al.  The Impact of Academic Patenting on the Rate, Quality and Direction of (Public) Research Output , 2009 .

[31]  Andrea Vezzulli,et al.  The Unequal Benefits of Academic Patenting for Science and Engineering Research , 2009, IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management.

[32]  R. Nelson.  The market economy, and the scientific commons , 2004 .

[33]  D. Simonton.  Creativity in Science: Chance, Logic, Genius, and Zeitgeist , 2004 .

[34]  Kevin Davies,et al.  Cracking the genome : inside the race to unlock human DNA , 2001 .

[35]  Paula E. Stephan,et al.  Striking the Mother Lode in Science: The Importance of Age, Place, and Time. , 1993 .

[36]  J. Hicks,et al.  The economics of science , 1996 .

[37]  Alberto Di Minin,et al.  Commercializing the laboratory: the relationship between faculty patenting and publishing , 2004 .

[38]  J. H. Austin,et al.  Chase, chance, and creativity : the lucky art of novelty , 1978 .

[39]  Andrea Vezzulli,et al.  If star scientists do not patent: The effect of productivity, basicness and impact on the decision to patent in the academic world , 2007 .

[40]  S. Woolgar,et al.  The Manufacture of Knowledge: an Essay on the Constructivist and Contextual Nature of Science , 1982 .

[41]  B. Latour,et al.  Laboratory Life: The Social Construction of Scientific Facts , 1983 .

[42]  Nathan Rosenberg,et al.  Scientific instrumentation and university research , 1992 .

[43]  Bernard Barber,et al.  The Case of the Floppy-Eared Rabbits: An Instance of Serendipity Gained and Serendipity Lost , 1958, American Journal of Sociology.

[44]  Ronald G. Ehrenberg,et al.  Who Bears the Growing Cost of Science at Universities? , 2003 .

[45]  L. Adrian,et al.  Creativity in Science , 2015 .

[46]  Paula E. Stephan,et al.  WHO'S PATENTING IN THE UNIVERSITY? EVIDENCE FROM THE SURVEY OF DOCTORATE RECIPIENTS , 2007 .

[47]  P. David,et al.  Toward a new economics of science , 1994 .

[48]  Waverly W. Ding,et al.  The Determinants of Faculty Patenting Behavior: Demographics or Opportunities? , 2005 .

[49]  M. Carree,et al.  Universities, Entry and Growth , 2011 .

[50]  N. Vittorio,et al.  Cosmological background radiation. , 1999 .

[51]  S. Schwartzman,et al.  The New Production of Knowledge: The Dynamics of Science and Research in Contemporary Societies , 1994 .

[52]  Ashwin Ram,et al.  Using content analysis to investigate the research paths chosen by scientists over time , 2010, Scientometrics.

[53]  W. Hagstrom.  The scientific community , 1966 .